.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, March 11, 2006

You Have To See This

Moved on! Check TheCairoCalls

I seem to be in the habit of changing opinions about people these days, but I can only salute Spielberg for this.
I am just home from a very late screening of 'Munich', and let me put it this way:
There are good movies that makes you feel all happy and satisfied, and then there are others which disturb you, and leaves you with a looser grip on reality.
'Munich' is of the latter type.
But don't take my word for it. Go see it!

Moved on!

25 Comments:

Well, 'Munich' is a very interesting and contravercial movie...the same as the rest of spielbergs'. As a person coming from a ME background, I recongnized the clear statment that Speilberg wanted to make by his movie; violence will result in only more violence. However, discussing the movie with other friends from deutch background, i found other deeper and equally important statments being made between the lines....Try to link the history of Germany (where Munich is), with two parties of the conflict in the movie, and with some the current events [Paris riots ]. Can you see the link?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 11, 2006 10:04 AM  

Hey Tomanbay - You're in Cairo, right? I'm surprised to hear that 'Munich' is being shown here. I must be out of the loop.... Where'd you see it?

By Anonymous ChebMary, at March 11, 2006 11:14 AM  

any form of dramatization of real events is a looser grip on reality, period.

By Blogger jelsted, at March 11, 2006 12:14 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Haider Droubi, at March 11, 2006 5:28 PM  

this movie shocked me ...as all peopel here ..i expected that it will put all the blame on arabs ..in a clever way..the message was..violance ...cause more violance..but i think they should have known that years before they built a generation full of anger and unconfidance....i think the movie is a step toward saying a part of the real world..still i conserve my comments on some 'statement' that passed between the lines...espichally the conversation between ALI and the main actor in athena about the feeling of each pary ..or should i say .. the plan ...
more generations (of both sides)will grow up full of anger and hate in this world ...after all ..he went back to the states..knowing that what he was under a brain -wash

By Blogger Haider Droubi, at March 11, 2006 5:30 PM  

chebmary: check this out
http://www.yallabina.com/Movies/movie_details.aspx?movieID=1386&Image1.x=27&Image1.y=7

By Blogger Tomanbay, at March 11, 2006 5:33 PM  

Thanks!

By Anonymous ChebMary, at March 11, 2006 5:38 PM  

yeah great movie, did not expct it to be screened in Egypt. i wonder if there are edits!

By Blogger Memz, at March 11, 2006 5:58 PM  

I felt it was too intense and not in a positive way- so on that front I agree with Tomanbay.

I didn't like it though. Speilberg was trying to sell us another holocaust and it didn't work- at least not for me.

Assasinating the olympic team was a horrible and stupid crime. But the movie tries to tell us that the ARABS started it and that's why the Israelis/Jews have to use their "same" methods. (A historical error to say the least.)

In the movie, the 'team leader' who was recruited by the Mossad to liquidate the 11 Palestinians who allegedly masterminded the Munich operation, is shown frequently haunted by the gruesome details of the assasination of the Israeli team although he never saw it. Actually nobody witnessed it because everyone was killed on both sides.

Speilberg tried too hard to make those scenes haunt the viewers. I felt they was imposed and exagerated although I'm not underminding the viciousness of the Munich operation.

On the other hand, I think I was too put off by the killings in the movie. It was too much and again, Speilberg wanted us to think the Isreali assasins put aside their "Jewishness" and resorted to the same methods of the Arabs because that's the only way to fight back.

I think he failed to be moral about it. I also think I walked out of that movie hating Israelis much more than I ever did.

It's as if all those tens of thousands of Palestinians who were killed in 1948 in systematic massacres and all the masses who were forced to immigrate and who were deprived of the right to have a HOME- never existed (not that I expected Speilberg to be fair.)

Speilberg's attempt to be moral failed miserably and in my case at least, was counterproductive.

The shit about how the Jews didn't have a home is pathetic and condesending. So Muslims should form a purely Muslim state and call it Muslimstan? And Christians should do the same too?

Or are Jews the CHOSEN PEOPLE and thus get special treatment: they occupy a country, declare it theirs and then blackmail the world for the holocaust. That's cheap. Really cheap.

By Blogger The Cairene, at March 12, 2006 12:49 AM  

actually i heard that somebody is calling Spe=ielberg 'no friend of israel' for this specific movie...
You obviously went to the movie with a preconcieved opinion, and u tried to find things to enforce this opinion.
For me, I also went under the pretense that the movie is balanced, and I found it to be so. Not that it is taking any one side, but because it really illustrated that violence isn't right, it will only breed more violence , and it could be in any direction (the head of the killing squad felt that the Mossad was actually trying to kill him)...also I think what Spielberg was trying to do (esp in the last scene...think about it again) was to dissaciote between Judaism and Israel, and that what the Mossad was doing was actually not in line with judaism (which is actually a religion, and wouldnt promote violence also)...
The movie wasn't about "those tens of thousands of Palestinians who were killed in 1948 in systematic massacres"..and i didnt expect him to have an opinion about those...
If u think about it in another frame of mind, you'd find that here is a mossad officer, who found out that what israel was doing is not jewish, and thats why he is living as a jew in broklyn (not jeursalem!!!)

By Blogger Tomanbay, at March 12, 2006 1:51 AM  

Asaad Abu Khalil trashed this movie, but he is very picky. I think I would go see it just out of curiousity, and certainly don't have an opinion about it right now just based on other people's reactions.

By Blogger Anna in Portland (was Cairo), at March 12, 2006 3:33 PM  

I thought it was quiet balanced when I first saw it, the thing that I liked most about it that the movie questioned the involvment of those being eliminated in the olympic massacre and demanded a solid proof, which, as it turned out, not a single one of them had any role in the whole operation (including Aly Hassan Salamah, who was thought to be the master mind), but the movie stopped short of explicitly saying that, also there was no mention of the mistaken identity of the poor morrocan waiter in Norway. Here's Robert Fisk's review of the movie:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=012306213123

By Anonymous Mohamed, at March 13, 2006 12:06 AM  

Foreign films are difficult for Arab/Egyptians to understand. Anyone who thinks Munich is selling a Holocaust should try working his mind more in English. The film as tomanbay said & many before him, that violence breeds violence & the circle never ends.
It also showed how Americans & Europeans are using both sides (Israelis-arabs) for those who think that Israel dictates the Americans.
As for Cairene, you didnt get the film at all simply because your prejudism stands between you & the facts which leads you to the truth.
Your history of 48 was even betetr than the travels of sindbad but then i doub you know history at all as your comments in the end show pure ignorance & bigotry too.
What do you jerusalem was at first? arab inhabited?? what about Egypt, was it settled by so many arabs to be an arab state or what exactly, oh well, its useless to debate with ignorance.
again as i said, some films are just way beyond many egyptians.

By Anonymous Jokerman, at March 13, 2006 4:56 PM  

jokerman,
Who are you to tell me what is beyond me and what's not?
Are you actually going to claim that before the jewish gangs massacred and depopulated palestine from its people there were no arabs there?
Oh, right, I should have known, there was a land with no people and there were a people without a land.
Right, the crux of the zionist myth.
Nobody has the right to judge me or my views based on my view of Munich. that's how I perceived it and that's my right. And nobody has the right to claim that I went there with preconceived ideas just because they think otherwise.

By Blogger The Cairene, at March 14, 2006 1:01 AM  

cairene
rushing into assumptions causes mistakes.
I never implied it was a land with no people,but you seem rather shaky regarding history as you think that Arabs always lived there & its actually an arab land!
You brought in zionist myths when i did not but what about arab myths? why dont you look into them too to maintain an objective view,
& you also forget, or dont know, that massacres went both ways & its your right sure to view the film the way you did just as its the right for someone to think of yossef shaheen's immigrant (al mohager) as praising Hebrews & attacking ancient egyptians!
you did not understand the film because of your narrow perception & limited cultural knowledge.
again,I never claim to be anybody but i know certain things are beyond you because prejudism is a barrier to truth & facts,so i dont think you will fathom them.

By Anonymous Jokerman, at March 14, 2006 12:44 PM  

"you did not understand the film because of your narrow perception & limited cultural knowledge.. i know certain things are beyond you because prejudism is a barrier to truth & facts,so i dont think you will fathom them."

Jokerman: again you are throwing accusations. Don't you think I can say the same about you? That I can choose to insult you and call you "ignorant", "limited" and "prejudiced"- just like you did? Listen, if you have an argument make it, otherwise don't think that attacking other people is an argument because its not. Are you so incapable of coming up with an argument to illustrate your point?

By Blogger The Cairene, at March 14, 2006 2:06 PM  

let me put in points
1-I didnt throw accusations. Ignorant means you dont know much about what you were saying,lack of info & facts.Limited isnt an insult but a description, you being Prejudiced is true, what is an insult? if i did say a f**** ignorant or any other bad language that would be an insult.
2-Sure you can say whatever you want but it will only depend on what you want to do.
3- I did ask you a few points which you have ignored so i am sorry but it is you who is incapable of comprehension or arguing rationally, whether its your haste or prejudism doesnt matter but the point at the end is, your view of the film is completely wrong & you really dont want to change it or know why, do you?

By Anonymous Jokerman, at March 14, 2006 3:28 PM  

Who says my view of the film is "completely wrong"? You? Well that's not good enough.

And why should I change my view? Did I ask you to change yours?

Gosh that was such a convincing argument jokerman.

yawn...

By Blogger The Cairene, at March 14, 2006 11:52 PM  

as i said, ignorant in history & with a narrow culture,what does one expect? not much!
you cant change your views as your perception is limited & under prejudisim, fehemt?? al nafss ta3shaq ma tahwah.

By Blogger jokerman, at March 15, 2006 1:38 AM  

Mohamed
They did have a role, most had in that Munich operation, some were merely involved in other activities relatd to the group but the one who was killed by mistake as an israeli official later in the nineties admitted was the first casualty, zweiter, the guy in Rome.

By Blogger jokerman, at March 15, 2006 1:41 AM  

Jokerman, well of course my preception is limited and I'm ignorant because as you said in your first post on this blog, Arabs/Egyptians have a problem in understanding foreign movies.

Since I'm Arab/Egyptian and you're, what Israeli I suppose, I'm definitly mentally inferior to you.

And I can't compare to your excellent and unbiased reading of history based on your zionist prejudices.
Zionist definitly when you have the AUDACITY to claim that Palestine was not inhabited by Arabs and that "both" sides, the Jewish gangs and the Palestinians committed massacres. That's typical Israeli propaganda.

By Blogger The Cairene, at March 15, 2006 2:33 AM  

Cairene,You & your english is just so..but for the love of God i will try & simplify it for you.
1-Find out what Prejudism is first then see if it applies to you or not, because it does.
2-You keep rushing into conclusions & make more & more mistakes.
3-Who lived in Palestine before the Arabs invasion & when did the arabs become a majority there?
4-Im not zionist & did not say anything related to zionism. Some of its precepts are racist & so are you.
5-Go read about what Palestinian arabs did in 1929.
Problem with prejudiced bigots, like yourself, is that they exclude logic from their thinking, you think a bunch of jews settling in palestine & being an acute minority would simply slaughter the palestinians & they just sat peaceful all the time? There were massacres from both sides, jews had their infamous Hagganah & stern while palestinians had themselves & many innocent on both sides were killed for prejudism such as you suffer from.
You dare to call me biased & you dont even know half the truth, poor palestinians never layed a finger on anyone, sorry they were just as bad as the jewish gangs.
I can rip your argument apart but for what, a prejudiced bigot? nahhh,

By Anonymous Jokerman, at March 15, 2006 12:19 PM  

cairene, one last thing, You say Israeli propaganda, what about Arab propaganda then? It is far worse than israeli propaganda. tell you what,you know nothing & all this proves you dont understand much anyway & discussion is futile with the prejudiced.

By Anonymous Jokerman, at March 15, 2006 12:25 PM  

Jokerman,
I'm sorry, none of them were involved, read Aaron Klein's book Striking back, and you'll see that they were killed for reasons other than Munich, and in fact the only one involved in the planning who was eventually murdered in the early nineties was Abu Ayad, and he was killed by palestinians in some kind of a power struggle.

By Anonymous Mohamed, at March 18, 2006 11:12 PM  

Mohamed
Some say that, some say most of them were involved, what does one believe? Those who were killed for other reasons were probably planning something else & eliminating them disrupts operations, temporarily.i think it was mentioned in the film somewhere, but as the film showed, it continues on & on & on.
By the way, whenever do Egyptians refer to jewish writers? If i was to cite one as a reference i would get the usual: "Oh hes a jew, who beleives them?" So you see that some of them have the guts to say the truth & say it.
The bit i dont believe about the film which was in the Book Vengeance, is that french Le Group, how can they possibly know the weherabouts of anyone anywhere without anyone knowing who they really are?? I feel it was a way to diguise the real source identity.

By Anonymous Jokerman, at March 19, 2006 2:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home